The Nash Equilibrium and the traveller's dilemma

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then the common use of the "assumption of common rationality" is different than the "assumption of infinite rationality" that you used in setting up this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]



Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the accepted answer is wrong. Come up with a couterargument that isn't an argument from authority.

[/ QUOTE ]



We are talking about the definition of "the assumption of common/infinite rationality."

Your definition is wrong. I read through a book here to get a better understanding of it, and posted a wiki link (wiki isnt the greatest, but Im sure there are better readings online available).


If we disagree on a definition, then what means do I have beyond referencing authority to give credence to the claim that my definition is superior?


I mean, imagine the following dialogue:

A: That movie was brilliant!

B: No way. It was full of plot holes, had poor acting, the camera work was terrible and the ending made no sense.

A: While all that is true, the movie's name began with the letter 'Q', which means that it must be brilliant!

B: Well, thats not really the definition of 'brilliant.' Let me get a dictionary to show you.

A: OMG. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.